Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-23-1980
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1980
>
Agenda - 06-23-1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2017 4:09:03 PM
Creation date
7/7/2015 9:10:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/23/1980
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19800623
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1980's\1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
544 <br /> Page 2 <br /> POSSIBLE PROVISIONS FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE <br /> ORANGE COUNTY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRGCkk-lf <br /> It should be noted that there are a number of interesting features <br /> designed into the permitting and fee schedules of several different <br /> jurisdictions. These features affect fiscal concerns and questions of <br /> compliance with the ordinance, as well as environmental impact_ A <br /> discussion of what I consider to be key issues follows. <br /> GR.aTING PERMIT <br /> Development of a cardboard grading permit, to be posted at a <br /> conspicuous location on the construction site, is recommended. <br /> FINED PE&MIT FEE FOR EACH UNIT DISTURBED AREA , <br /> Adoption of this type of fee schedule is recommended. In general, <br /> the number of required sediment control points (and, therefore, <br /> inspection-administration time) is directly proportional to the <br /> extent of land disturbance. <br /> VARIABLE PERMIT FEES FOR PROJECTS OF DIFFERING SIZES AND TYPE OF <br /> LA;\D USE <br /> _. All land disturbing activities generate similar amounts of sediment <br /> per unit uncovered area. Environmental factors and site planning <br /> considerations have a far greater impact on damage potential and <br /> ease of control than does land use type. This provision is not <br /> recommended. <br /> PERMIT TItIE LIMIT AND RE--APPLICATION FEE <br /> This idea has numerous implications. First, the developer is <br /> encouraged to complete his project quickly. Obvious environmental <br /> benefits accrue from this as no sedimentation control device is 100% <br /> effective. There is no substitute for permanent erosion control_ <br /> It should be noted that this provision results in increased pressures <br /> an the developer, an undesirable side effect. Another possible effect <br /> of this provision would be to encourage projects that could be <br /> completed in one year or less. Projects which require several years <br /> to complete have to be inspected and administrative procedures followed <br /> just the same as for shorter term projects. As the County's budget <br /> operates on a yearly cycle, revenue generation through a permitting <br /> program should operate on a similar cycle. <br /> A permit time limit of one (1) year from the date of issuance is <br /> recommended. In order to reduce the negative impact on projects <br /> lasting, for example, 15 months, it is suggested that renewal of a <br /> permit be valid for six (6) months, at one--half the original, <br /> application fee. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.